Thursday, November 30, 2006
the Associated Press is pro-victory
The Associated Press has faced considerable critique about its horrific story about six Shi'a men being burned alive by Sunnis in Baghdad. The critique hinges one the claim by the US military that the AP's source, a police captain Capt. Jamil Hussein, misrepresented himself. From a letter written by Lt. Michael Dean to the Associated Press:
The AP however made it clear that their source was legitimate. From a response letter written by AP International Editor John Daniszewski:
AP reporters who have been working in Iraq throughout the conflict learned of the mosque incident through witnesses and neighborhood residents and corroborated it with a named police spokesmen and also through hospital and morgue workers.
In fact, the AP then produced the follow-up with more sources as promised.
So let's recap here. The AP prinmts a story. The military objects, casting doubt on the source, and asks for either a retractio or to provide additional witnesses. The AP demonstrates that their source was in fact legitimate, and then also provides additional sources.
This whole affair speaks to a larger issue of "news out of Iraq". The belief seems to be that if the general public is shielded from bad news, or that bad news is minimized, or even outright denied, then that will maintain support for the war, or at least counteract the increasing lack of support.
This systematic campaign to delegitimize the media has backfired. By pretending that things are actually rosy and that good progress has been made (and it is no slight upon the honor and sacrifice of brave Iraqis or US soldiers to acknowledge otherwise), proponents of the campaign in Iraq have weakened their case. That is precisely why the public sentiment has hardened.
Had the media simply been muzzled for the past five years, as the most extreme of the media critics demand, then the public may have been ignorant of the details on the ground, but the reason we are losing the war in Iraq against the forces of anarchy is the fault of the insurgents, and a lack on our side not of will to sacrifice and fight but simply in resources, planning, and organization. I mean, isn't is truly shameful that we are only hearing about "going long" now, three years after the invasion? And make no mistake - it's liberals and Democrats who came up with that idea first.
To be honest, i still favor staying in Iraq. If we do withdraw fully, we will be ensuring that the brave voices of freedom upon whom the future liberty of all the oppressed masses in the middle east hinges, will die hideous deaths. It would be supreme cynicism to abandon Iraq.
The failure thus far is of execution, not principle, which is why the Administration is so desperate to whitewash the metrics by success or failure might by any reasonable standard be measured. And thus we see the Lancet study attacked, daily reports of deaths attacked, violence in iraq compared to urban street violence in the US, etc. To these critics I simply ask, what metric would YOU accept that would definitively show that we have failed in Iraq? But asking the question is pointless - especially since they have never been able to satisfactorily define victory. I mean, the Administration is so detached from the reality they'd prefer that they are actually considering choosing sides in the civil war whose raging they still refuse to acknowledge.
Elections were simply a (purple) fig leaf. But democracy is an end state, built upon a robust and rigorous foundation of stability, security, and personal freedom. The right of the individual as a sovereign must be secured by liberal constitutionlism first, before any talk of representative government can be entertained. Otherwise, you end up electing Hamas.
What is needed now is indeed to go long. Follow Phil Carter's prescription to abandon the superfortresses and increase the embedded advisers. Give Maliki an ultimatum: rein in the Shi'a militias, or lose control of your (still sovereign nation)'s armed forces. Engage Syria - there's plenty of carrots to peel them off of Iran and re-align with us, to the benefit of Israel and to Iraq.
And we need to celebrate the media for its role in keeping the pressure on. Because the Administration would rather "pick sides" and "declare victory and go home" rather than make the hard choices and the commitments that have been needed from the start.
We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team.
Also, we definitely know, as we told you several weeks ago through the MNC-I Media Relations cell, that another AP-popular IP spokesman, Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq, supposedly of the city's Yarmouk police station, does not work at that police station and is also not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP. The MOI has supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning.
[...]
Unless you have a credible source to corroborate the story of the people being burned alive, we respectfully request that AP issue a retraction, or a correction at a minimum, acknowledging that the source named in the story is not who he claimed he was.
The AP however made it clear that their source was legitimate. From a response letter written by AP International Editor John Daniszewski:
AP reporters who have been working in Iraq throughout the conflict learned of the mosque incident through witnesses and neighborhood residents and corroborated it with a named police spokesmen and also through hospital and morgue workers.
We have conducted a thorough review of the sourcing and reporting involved and plan to move a more detailed report about the entire incident soon, with greater detail provided by multiple eye witnesses. Several of those witnesses spoke to AP on the condition that their names would not be used because they fear reprisals.
The police captain cited in our story has long been known to the AP reporters and has been interviewed in his office and by telephone on several occasions during the past two years.
He is an officer at the police station in Yarmouk, with a record of reliability and truthfulness. His full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein.
The AP stands by its story.
In fact, the AP then produced the follow-up with more sources as promised.
Seeking further information about Friday's attack, an AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time about the incident to confirm there was no error. The captain has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions. The captain, who gave his full name as Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, said six people were indeed set on fire.
On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.
Those who would talk said the assault began about 2:15 p.m., and they believed the attackers were from the Mahdi Army militia loyal to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He and the Shiite militia are deeply rooted in and control the Sadr City enclave in northeastern Baghdad where suspected Sunni insurgents attacked with a series of car bombs and mortar shells, killing at least 215 people a day before.
The witnesses refused to allow the use of their names because they feared retribution either from the original attackers or the police, whose ranks are infiltrated by Mahdi Army members or its associated death squads.
Two of the witnesses — a 45-year-old bookshop owner and a 48-year-old neighborhood grocery owner — gave nearly identical accounts of what happened. A third, a physician, said he saw the attack on the mosque from his home, saw it burning and heard people in the streets screaming that people had been set on fire. All three men are Sunni Muslims.
So let's recap here. The AP prinmts a story. The military objects, casting doubt on the source, and asks for either a retractio or to provide additional witnesses. The AP demonstrates that their source was in fact legitimate, and then also provides additional sources.
This whole affair speaks to a larger issue of "news out of Iraq". The belief seems to be that if the general public is shielded from bad news, or that bad news is minimized, or even outright denied, then that will maintain support for the war, or at least counteract the increasing lack of support.
This systematic campaign to delegitimize the media has backfired. By pretending that things are actually rosy and that good progress has been made (and it is no slight upon the honor and sacrifice of brave Iraqis or US soldiers to acknowledge otherwise), proponents of the campaign in Iraq have weakened their case. That is precisely why the public sentiment has hardened.
Had the media simply been muzzled for the past five years, as the most extreme of the media critics demand, then the public may have been ignorant of the details on the ground, but the reason we are losing the war in Iraq against the forces of anarchy is the fault of the insurgents, and a lack on our side not of will to sacrifice and fight but simply in resources, planning, and organization. I mean, isn't is truly shameful that we are only hearing about "going long" now, three years after the invasion? And make no mistake - it's liberals and Democrats who came up with that idea first.
To be honest, i still favor staying in Iraq. If we do withdraw fully, we will be ensuring that the brave voices of freedom upon whom the future liberty of all the oppressed masses in the middle east hinges, will die hideous deaths. It would be supreme cynicism to abandon Iraq.
The failure thus far is of execution, not principle, which is why the Administration is so desperate to whitewash the metrics by success or failure might by any reasonable standard be measured. And thus we see the Lancet study attacked, daily reports of deaths attacked, violence in iraq compared to urban street violence in the US, etc. To these critics I simply ask, what metric would YOU accept that would definitively show that we have failed in Iraq? But asking the question is pointless - especially since they have never been able to satisfactorily define victory. I mean, the Administration is so detached from the reality they'd prefer that they are actually considering choosing sides in the civil war whose raging they still refuse to acknowledge.
Elections were simply a (purple) fig leaf. But democracy is an end state, built upon a robust and rigorous foundation of stability, security, and personal freedom. The right of the individual as a sovereign must be secured by liberal constitutionlism first, before any talk of representative government can be entertained. Otherwise, you end up electing Hamas.
What is needed now is indeed to go long. Follow Phil Carter's prescription to abandon the superfortresses and increase the embedded advisers. Give Maliki an ultimatum: rein in the Shi'a militias, or lose control of your (still sovereign nation)'s armed forces. Engage Syria - there's plenty of carrots to peel them off of Iran and re-align with us, to the benefit of Israel and to Iraq.
And we need to celebrate the media for its role in keeping the pressure on. Because the Administration would rather "pick sides" and "declare victory and go home" rather than make the hard choices and the commitments that have been needed from the start.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
some drafts are worse than others
By now everyone has piled on to the draft idea floated by Sen. Rangel. To be honest, I don't think it's such a terrible idea. Not that I'd neccessarily support it, but I can see the merits. Israel, Switzerland, and numerous other countries have much the same thing.
The thing is that there are indeed benefits to military training and there owuld be a net positive social impact. So it isn't an idea I would easily dismiss.
Now, there's already one diary on the rec list about why the draft proposal is good politics, but let's actually talk about the draft in the context of policy instead.
The problem with Rangel's proposal is that it's too comprehensive. There are about 8,000,000 people in the US of age between 18 21, and paying them their salaries alone would be a quarter of a trillion dollars a year. But it's a good starting point for a debate about what a draft can look like and what purpose it could serve.
Let's first and foremost remember that a draft does not neccessarily mean combat. If we think of the draft as akin to national guard service, then suddenly the question of its purpose becomes a lot clearer.
I think a more reasonable proposal would be that all high school age kids be enrolled for a mandatory semester in basic (but not intensive) military training. Then, have a rotating system whereby everyone is called up for 3 months of service sometime during the ages of 18-21. They would simply report to their local National Guard office and for all intents and purposes be a part of the Guard for that period. Every five years, they would again be asked to spend three months of service thereafter.
The period of service would be tax free and would carry full health benefits. (this would also open the door to scaling up the VA system for health care to cover all uninsured, but that's a different topic).
What would you do during your service period? Everything that the National Guard does. Teach kids, save lives in disasters, build housing for the poor, provide security for major events, and of course respond to disasters. And once in a while, if the events warrant and we are faced with a truly global scale war for which the volunteer Army would be insufficient, then also provide rotating support. Terms of that would be a different matter of course. But the likelihood of it would be much lower than today, because it would need to be a World War scale conflict.
The benefit is that a lot of people who taste the military life might well choose to make it a career. It's not unreasonable to expect that a draft as outlined above would probably greatly increase the size of our volunteer army - and the extremely hard to recruit and train special forces.
At any rate this is an idea that we should consider and discuss, not reject out of hand.
(xposted to my Daily Kos diary, including a poll).
The thing is that there are indeed benefits to military training and there owuld be a net positive social impact. So it isn't an idea I would easily dismiss.
Now, there's already one diary on the rec list about why the draft proposal is good politics, but let's actually talk about the draft in the context of policy instead.
The problem with Rangel's proposal is that it's too comprehensive. There are about 8,000,000 people in the US of age between 18 21, and paying them their salaries alone would be a quarter of a trillion dollars a year. But it's a good starting point for a debate about what a draft can look like and what purpose it could serve.
Let's first and foremost remember that a draft does not neccessarily mean combat. If we think of the draft as akin to national guard service, then suddenly the question of its purpose becomes a lot clearer.
I think a more reasonable proposal would be that all high school age kids be enrolled for a mandatory semester in basic (but not intensive) military training. Then, have a rotating system whereby everyone is called up for 3 months of service sometime during the ages of 18-21. They would simply report to their local National Guard office and for all intents and purposes be a part of the Guard for that period. Every five years, they would again be asked to spend three months of service thereafter.
The period of service would be tax free and would carry full health benefits. (this would also open the door to scaling up the VA system for health care to cover all uninsured, but that's a different topic).
What would you do during your service period? Everything that the National Guard does. Teach kids, save lives in disasters, build housing for the poor, provide security for major events, and of course respond to disasters. And once in a while, if the events warrant and we are faced with a truly global scale war for which the volunteer Army would be insufficient, then also provide rotating support. Terms of that would be a different matter of course. But the likelihood of it would be much lower than today, because it would need to be a World War scale conflict.
The benefit is that a lot of people who taste the military life might well choose to make it a career. It's not unreasonable to expect that a draft as outlined above would probably greatly increase the size of our volunteer army - and the extremely hard to recruit and train special forces.
At any rate this is an idea that we should consider and discuss, not reject out of hand.
(xposted to my Daily Kos diary, including a poll).
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Whither Palestine? http://eteraz.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/11/16/6118/6888
Ali Eteraz has launched a new Scoop-based site for muslim bloggers - the "Dailykos of the Islamsphere", essentially. In my diary at that site, I have written an exclusive essay, a contemplation of the Israeli-Palestine conflict and the outlines of what is required for lasting peace. Do drop by and take a look. And keep an eye on Eteraz.org! This is one to watch.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
debunking the climate change debunkers
George Monbiot takes on the widely acclaimed debunking of climate change by Christopher Monckton. Real Climate also weighs in.
Gates: the right man for the job? http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009215.php
Joe Katzman is flummoxed by the choice of Gates for Secretary of Defense. In a nutshell, his argument is that he is tainted by his previous roles during previous administrations. He concludes,
Gates has shown that he's a capable man - but that doesn't make him the right man.
but why not? His history in the 80s and early 90s are steeped in the realpolitik of the day but that was during the Cold War. nuff said.
As far as today, Gates' major change will be to treat Iran and Syria as the rational actors they are. Classic Westphalianism. Neither Iran nor Syria are served by anarchy in Iraq, a breakup into three nation states (which would guarantee Turkey's meddling in their domain as well as a hostile Sunni state on their doorstep). In fact if anything stability in Iraq might well lead to more freedom in Iran and a weakening of the mullah's grip (economic prosperity is directly correlated with liberty. See Zakaria's "Future of Freedom"). And once we dangle carrots in front of Syria then we have the leverage to influence them on the Israel/Hizbollah front.
A classic diplomat like Gates can do a lot. Diplomacy isnt as sexy as military solutions but as Gary Hart says, we are a multipolar power. Gates is the right man to start flexing those muscles that have atrophied. Diplomacy is arguably more effective than brute force - especially in a cauldron like the ME - because everyone has a stake in the outcome.
Gates has shown that he's a capable man - but that doesn't make him the right man.
but why not? His history in the 80s and early 90s are steeped in the realpolitik of the day but that was during the Cold War. nuff said.
As far as today, Gates' major change will be to treat Iran and Syria as the rational actors they are. Classic Westphalianism. Neither Iran nor Syria are served by anarchy in Iraq, a breakup into three nation states (which would guarantee Turkey's meddling in their domain as well as a hostile Sunni state on their doorstep). In fact if anything stability in Iraq might well lead to more freedom in Iran and a weakening of the mullah's grip (economic prosperity is directly correlated with liberty. See Zakaria's "Future of Freedom"). And once we dangle carrots in front of Syria then we have the leverage to influence them on the Israel/Hizbollah front.
A classic diplomat like Gates can do a lot. Diplomacy isnt as sexy as military solutions but as Gary Hart says, we are a multipolar power. Gates is the right man to start flexing those muscles that have atrophied. Diplomacy is arguably more effective than brute force - especially in a cauldron like the ME - because everyone has a stake in the outcome.
Monday, November 13, 2006
a defense of Al Gore, and initial '08 thoughts by Trippi http://mydd.com/story/2006/11/12/181412/88
fantastic diary by NuevoLiberal in defense of Gore's liberal credentials, policy acumen, and general awesomeness (yeah I am biased ok?). Lots of links. A must-read.
FWIW the conventional wisdom is that Gore will run in 08 despite his denials. Especially since Warner (the centrist) and Feingold (the progressive) have opted out. Joe Trippi has a piece in the WaPo about the frontrunners (written prior to Feingold's statement). Heres the items of particular interest to me:
I don't really consider Obama, Richardson, or Bayh to be viable. Biden is interesting. Kerry is out - I'll vote for the Republican or not vote at all. Clark and Vilsack are more veepish as far as I am concerned - they really have to distinguish themselves. And Clark carries Clinton baggage, so if he does declare and Hillary is running as assumed, there might be issues there.
FWIW the conventional wisdom is that Gore will run in 08 despite his denials. Especially since Warner (the centrist) and Feingold (the progressive) have opted out. Joe Trippi has a piece in the WaPo about the frontrunners (written prior to Feingold's statement). Heres the items of particular interest to me:
Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton
She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.
Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.
The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore
Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?
The Champion of 2006: John Edwards
Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.
I don't really consider Obama, Richardson, or Bayh to be viable. Biden is interesting. Kerry is out - I'll vote for the Republican or not vote at all. Clark and Vilsack are more veepish as far as I am concerned - they really have to distinguish themselves. And Clark carries Clinton baggage, so if he does declare and Hillary is running as assumed, there might be issues there.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Daily Kos: Bring Science Back to Congress: Restore the OTA! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/9/141240/622
An excellent proposal for a to-do item for the new Democratic majority: Daily restore the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
Fixing all the ways in which the GOP majority damaged the apparatus and infrastructure of sound policy and governance is going to take a long time. But this would be a great start.
Fixing all the ways in which the GOP majority damaged the apparatus and infrastructure of sound policy and governance is going to take a long time. But this would be a great start.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
on Robert Gates as SecDef http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/11/8/133220/467/?pid=0#c238
Kos takes a swipe at Rummy's replacement. My comment:
lets not spit in our own drinks. Bob Gates is actually on the Baker Hamilton commission, so that speaks well for a return to realism rather than neocon idealism.
is there ANY govt official who isnt tainted in some way? Who would you prefer that a **republican** administration appoint to secdef? it sure aint gonna be gary hart. If there are no acceptable candidates then why even make this critique? Is it spite?
"Gates was close to many figures" - so what? what does that even mean? Do we want "close to many figures" to be the new litmust test? Unless there was some evidence - and there may well be, for all I know - that Gates was directly involved in some illegal conspiracy then we shoudlnt be so eager to tar and feather.
I for one woudl rather praise the admin for doing sommething right with respect to the war than piling on no matter what. We stiull have our troops in the theater over there. If Gates as secdef means less of their lives are wasted, then we shoudl cheer.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
pragmatic liberal interventionism http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12186
Excellent article by Blake at TAP Online.
I think however that he relies too much on the example of Acheson - as I note in a comment over at AF, there are a lot of other prominent people - including Gore, Fukuyama, Hart, and even Zakaria. If pragmatic liberal interventionism, or neo-wilsoniamism, or whatever we are to call it, is to really gain acceptance we need our own "neocon cabal" to validate it.
Recently here on TAP Online, Shadi Hamid and Spencer Ackerman debated what should serve as the lodestar of a progressive foreign policy vision. Hamid argued that the United States should make the promotion of democracy the centerpiece of its foreign policy, while Ackerman advocated that human rights take that role. Such questions will very likely become more relevant after Tuesday, if Democrats gain more power in Congress. But neither Hamid nor Ackerman offered the correct answer. As the small example of Vietnam helps to illustrate, the United States ought to be redirecting its energies toward renewing its strength and expanding the postwar liberal world order. Do that, and the rest -- democracy, human rights, liberal reforms -- will eventually follow.
I think however that he relies too much on the example of Acheson - as I note in a comment over at AF, there are a lot of other prominent people - including Gore, Fukuyama, Hart, and even Zakaria. If pragmatic liberal interventionism, or neo-wilsoniamism, or whatever we are to call it, is to really gain acceptance we need our own "neocon cabal" to validate it.
Labels: PLI
Monday, November 06, 2006
looking (far) east
I've grown supremely tired of the dominance of the middle east, terrorism, and endless civilizational existenialist angst. When I have to deal with middle east issues, for example in defending my rights and identity as a muslim and an American, I will continue to do so at City of Brass. But being doomed to repeat history - deja vu, ad infinitum - seems to be the defining characteristic of the Holy Land. And I'd rather be a smart consumer of noise-filtered yet ideologically broad opinion about the middle east than aspire to pundit status. Blogs like Belgravia Dispatch, American Footprints, and Abu Aardvark pretty much cover the bases on that score.
What's more interesting to me is the power dynamic between China and Japan, frankly. On a trip to Kyoto in 2004 for a conference, I became better acquainted with Japanese culture as it truly exists, in defiance of the mass media stereotype. A full day wandering Tokyo left me genuinely and permanently receptive. And China figures large in my consciousness given that a significant fraction of my professional circle and colleagues are of Chinese origin. It's impossible for me to regard (the people of) China as an enemy, but a clash of civilizations almost certainly lies ahead. That is a reality that educated people on both sides need to acknowledge and do their utmost to modulate from within.
As a new topic, China and Japan certainly are rich veins of pundit ore to mine. For example, on the delicate dance between new Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and his counterpart in China, President Hu Jintao:
This stuff is Kremlinology for the 21st century. I'm going to reorient to the Orient.
And yes, I do feel some guilt about abandoning Africa. But Jonathan Edelstein has that covered, so a consumer I will remain.
What's more interesting to me is the power dynamic between China and Japan, frankly. On a trip to Kyoto in 2004 for a conference, I became better acquainted with Japanese culture as it truly exists, in defiance of the mass media stereotype. A full day wandering Tokyo left me genuinely and permanently receptive. And China figures large in my consciousness given that a significant fraction of my professional circle and colleagues are of Chinese origin. It's impossible for me to regard (the people of) China as an enemy, but a clash of civilizations almost certainly lies ahead. That is a reality that educated people on both sides need to acknowledge and do their utmost to modulate from within.
As a new topic, China and Japan certainly are rich veins of pundit ore to mine. For example, on the delicate dance between new Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and his counterpart in China, President Hu Jintao:
Mr Abe's first move was to pull a surprise "Nixon goes to China" visit to Beijing to meet President Hu Jintao. Mr Hu had said he would not meet Mr Koizumi until he promised not to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, a memorial to Japan's war dead, that includes 14 Class A war criminals from the second world war. Mr Koizumi visited the shrine anyway and passed on the summit with Mr Hu. Recognising the futility of his own approach and worried about the danger of anti-Japanese protests turning against the Chinese government, Mr Hu wisely chose not to demand the same condition of Mr. Abe. Mr. Abe, in turn, wisely chose not to promise that he would go to the shrine as Mr Koizumi had. With ambiguity re-established, Mr. Abe was able to meet Mr. Hu and reorient the Sino-Japanese dialogue towards more important challenges, such as cooperating to roll back North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes.
This stuff is Kremlinology for the 21st century. I'm going to reorient to the Orient.
And yes, I do feel some guilt about abandoning Africa. But Jonathan Edelstein has that covered, so a consumer I will remain.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Beyond the Condottieri
In relation to religious conservatives, a commenter (who also reads my other blog) offers:
I responded with a laugh and a quip. My friends are all secular liberals, and I always laugh at them when they use charged rhetoric, because the reality is that they weren't born fighting and they haven't learned fighting. The reality is that many elite liberals, those for whom college is a right of passage and not a privilege, there is normative contempt for soldiers and their lumpen culture. There is an aversion to violence as a solution to any problem, a culture which does not address or face the reality that not all conflicts are amenable to rational compromise. The reality is that the United States officer corps is now solidly Republican in orientation (last I heard it was around 4/5). In the citizenry the ownership of guns and a reflex toward belligerence when faced with threat is not concentrated amongst the liberal bourgeois. When I have been confronted by friends who can express nothing but contempt for the vast swath of conventional conservative Americans I can only caution them: these are the men with guns, to them your necks are bare and only their idolatry for the Constitution, the secular Bible, keeps the peace. Tread carefully!
Violence is a solution of very last resort. But, force is an option we must avail ourselves us to prepare and keep the peace, that is the nature of things in this world of ours. Instead since the 1960s the progressive elites have withdrawn from the world of arms and those bloody patriarchal values, and in their place has arisen a caste of Condottieri who owe fealty to one party, a caste of mercenaries who churn themselves out of the broad mass of Americans. A few years ago I was having a discussion with a very liberal friend of mine, and from the perspective of an apathetic libertarian I offered to him that perhaps the Democratic party, and the liberals who spearhead it, are simply constitutionally incapable of the Machiavellian and brutal competition which modern politics has become. I used terms like "feminized," but it really isn't a sensibility tied to sex. Consider that with the rise of gunpowder the noble castes of Europe turned away from valor at arms on the plains of battle toward more refinement, a cultivation of letters and manners. And yet these same men were the same stock from which arose the officers to lead soldiers into battle, they were multi-dimensional figures, they understood that the republic of letters and that of arms were dependent upon each other. But today the elite has bifurcated, the Condottieri caste are throwbacks to medieval values, a faith one god and emperor, unflinching loyalty and mannered coarseness, while the liberal establishment has taken the republic of letters to its logical conclusion and excised the blood and brutality from the equation. We are a society of specialists, focused on our own expertise, and this is simply one manifestation of that tendency. But the republics and empires of the past have flourished when generalists who could dodge and move with the punches that reality invariably sent their way were at the helm.
Which is why the rise of Jim Web gives me hope. The author of Born Fighting, Web is a son of the Condottieri caste who is also a warrior of the pen. He does not revel in anti-intellectualism and lacks no boldness of mind, and yet at the same time he believes that with privilege comes responsibility and the brutality of battle has an honor all its own, that war is an evil which nevertheless can enoble the unfortunates who are involuntarily drawn into its maelstrom. I have been using the term Condottieri and alluding to mercenaries consciously, because the modern Republican party is one of merchant princes who assemble and move their figurative and literal armies to enrich themselves at the expense of the body politic. In many ways the Democratic party is little different, and yet Web offers the hope that a new generation of righteous and upright men who value proper conduct over personal enrichment may arise, who live their lives not for the trinkets of the consumer society but the glory of god and peace of the republic.
Amen brother. We have to fight them legally now, or we will be fighting them in the Second American Revolution when we have to try to restore the Constitution.
I responded with a laugh and a quip. My friends are all secular liberals, and I always laugh at them when they use charged rhetoric, because the reality is that they weren't born fighting and they haven't learned fighting. The reality is that many elite liberals, those for whom college is a right of passage and not a privilege, there is normative contempt for soldiers and their lumpen culture. There is an aversion to violence as a solution to any problem, a culture which does not address or face the reality that not all conflicts are amenable to rational compromise. The reality is that the United States officer corps is now solidly Republican in orientation (last I heard it was around 4/5). In the citizenry the ownership of guns and a reflex toward belligerence when faced with threat is not concentrated amongst the liberal bourgeois. When I have been confronted by friends who can express nothing but contempt for the vast swath of conventional conservative Americans I can only caution them: these are the men with guns, to them your necks are bare and only their idolatry for the Constitution, the secular Bible, keeps the peace. Tread carefully!
Violence is a solution of very last resort. But, force is an option we must avail ourselves us to prepare and keep the peace, that is the nature of things in this world of ours. Instead since the 1960s the progressive elites have withdrawn from the world of arms and those bloody patriarchal values, and in their place has arisen a caste of Condottieri who owe fealty to one party, a caste of mercenaries who churn themselves out of the broad mass of Americans. A few years ago I was having a discussion with a very liberal friend of mine, and from the perspective of an apathetic libertarian I offered to him that perhaps the Democratic party, and the liberals who spearhead it, are simply constitutionally incapable of the Machiavellian and brutal competition which modern politics has become. I used terms like "feminized," but it really isn't a sensibility tied to sex. Consider that with the rise of gunpowder the noble castes of Europe turned away from valor at arms on the plains of battle toward more refinement, a cultivation of letters and manners. And yet these same men were the same stock from which arose the officers to lead soldiers into battle, they were multi-dimensional figures, they understood that the republic of letters and that of arms were dependent upon each other. But today the elite has bifurcated, the Condottieri caste are throwbacks to medieval values, a faith one god and emperor, unflinching loyalty and mannered coarseness, while the liberal establishment has taken the republic of letters to its logical conclusion and excised the blood and brutality from the equation. We are a society of specialists, focused on our own expertise, and this is simply one manifestation of that tendency. But the republics and empires of the past have flourished when generalists who could dodge and move with the punches that reality invariably sent their way were at the helm.
Which is why the rise of Jim Web gives me hope. The author of Born Fighting, Web is a son of the Condottieri caste who is also a warrior of the pen. He does not revel in anti-intellectualism and lacks no boldness of mind, and yet at the same time he believes that with privilege comes responsibility and the brutality of battle has an honor all its own, that war is an evil which nevertheless can enoble the unfortunates who are involuntarily drawn into its maelstrom. I have been using the term Condottieri and alluding to mercenaries consciously, because the modern Republican party is one of merchant princes who assemble and move their figurative and literal armies to enrich themselves at the expense of the body politic. In many ways the Democratic party is little different, and yet Web offers the hope that a new generation of righteous and upright men who value proper conduct over personal enrichment may arise, who live their lives not for the trinkets of the consumer society but the glory of god and peace of the republic.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
John Kerry and the Wisdom of the Crowd http://www.goodwillhinton.com/john_kerry_and_the_wisdom_of_the_crowd
It is generally said that there is wisdom is crowds. And this is often the case. However in election season those crowds turn into mobs and the wisdom disappears.
This latest Kerry flap is just the latest example of this. The majority of the conservative blogosphere is roiling with righteous indignation about Kerry, hoping that this is their "October surprise". (Fortunately, a few of my favorites including James Lileks, Rod Dreher, and La Shawn Barber are not drinking the Kool-Aid). After hearing many conservatives scream for years about wanting to campaign on the issue, it is disheartening to see so many jumping on the bandwagon of a non-issue.
I suppose what keeps me from being a cynic is being willing to assume the best of people, not the worst. Some might think that this goes against my Christian theology (original sin and all that) but it doesn't. While we are all certainly flawed and make mistakes on a daily basis, we are also made in the image of God (memo to my conservative friends: yes, that means liberals too).
If Kerry says that his intention was to malign President Bush then I take him at his word. It is still a ridiculous blunder, especially for a man who aspired to the presidency. But why is it necessary to pile on and assume the absolute worst of Kerry and hang him like an albatross around the necks of the Democrats?
Of course Democrats have done no different during this campaign season. They are still trying to hang the loathsome Mark Foley on every Republican incumbent. And Jack Abramoff.
I don't even really mind negative campaigning so long as it is true and relevant. But there are fewer things less attractive that overplaying one's hand.
This latest Kerry flap is just the latest example of this. The majority of the conservative blogosphere is roiling with righteous indignation about Kerry, hoping that this is their "October surprise". (Fortunately, a few of my favorites including James Lileks, Rod Dreher, and La Shawn Barber are not drinking the Kool-Aid). After hearing many conservatives scream for years about wanting to campaign on the issue, it is disheartening to see so many jumping on the bandwagon of a non-issue.
I suppose what keeps me from being a cynic is being willing to assume the best of people, not the worst. Some might think that this goes against my Christian theology (original sin and all that) but it doesn't. While we are all certainly flawed and make mistakes on a daily basis, we are also made in the image of God (memo to my conservative friends: yes, that means liberals too).
If Kerry says that his intention was to malign President Bush then I take him at his word. It is still a ridiculous blunder, especially for a man who aspired to the presidency. But why is it necessary to pile on and assume the absolute worst of Kerry and hang him like an albatross around the necks of the Democrats?
Of course Democrats have done no different during this campaign season. They are still trying to hang the loathsome Mark Foley on every Republican incumbent. And Jack Abramoff.
I don't even really mind negative campaigning so long as it is true and relevant. But there are fewer things less attractive that overplaying one's hand.
political filtering
Frank Schaeffer is a highly-respected conservative columnist for the Dallas Morning News. In his own words, he's "a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican." He has now decided to leave the GOP:
The smearing of Jim Webb is truly grotesque. RedState, which features guest posts by Speaker Hastert, goes all-out on Webb calling him a pervert and comparing him to John Mark Karr.
And why? What did Webb write in his book that has these so-called conservatives, standards-bearers of the GOP all, swooning with distaste? Radley Balko explains:
The Allen campaign is already paying a price for its audacious smear attempt. And keep in mind that George Allen in one of the frontrunners for the '08 GOP presidential nomination!
As the GOP leadership and leading stars continue to cater to extremists, solid and decent people like Schaeffer will continue to leave the party in droves. What they will leave behind will be a party even further bereft of the voices of moderation, so the cycle continues.
I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.
The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office."Democrat James Webb is a war hero and former Marine, wounded in Vietnam and winner of the Navy Cross. He was writing about class and military issues long before me and has articulated the issue of how the elites have dropped the ball on military service in his classic novel Fields of Fire. By the way, that's a book Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest of the Vietnam novels."
[...]
enough is enough. I've had it with Republican smears.
The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?
[...]
The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.
[...]
My wife and I have reached the tipping point. We plan to go to town hall to dump our Republican voter registration and reregister as independents. I don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of.
Wartime demands leaders with character and moral authority. The political party smearing Mr. Webb proves it has neither.
The smearing of Jim Webb is truly grotesque. RedState, which features guest posts by Speaker Hastert, goes all-out on Webb calling him a pervert and comparing him to John Mark Karr.
And why? What did Webb write in his book that has these so-called conservatives, standards-bearers of the GOP all, swooning with distaste? Radley Balko explains:
I just did an Amazon search on the passage in Webb’s book. It isn’t the least bit titillating. It’s in the context of an American in an exotic, backward, remote part of a foreign land. The penis-kissing scene baffles and bewilders the Americans. It is clearly not a “fellating.” It is not a depiction of pedophelia. It’s very obviously scene painting, and the shock and oddity of the act adds to the lead characters’ sense that they’re out-of-place.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped the right wing blogosphere from gleefully calling Webb a pedophile.
This is really despicable on the part of the Allen campaign. It’s little more than a celebration of ignorance, isolation, and fear. It’s a bald attempt to deflect the Foley scandal, not to mention Allen’s own ethnically insensitive missteps in this campaign.
Let’s summarize: While George Allen was discovering his love for the Confederacy in Southern California and at the University of Virginia, Jim Webb was fighting the war in Vietnam, finding himself wholly immersed in a completely foreign culture. Webb was obviously rather profoundly affected by that experience. Because he chose to write about it, in a series of books that have won widespread praise from politicians, from fellow Vietnam vets, and from literary critics.
The Allen campaign is already paying a price for its audacious smear attempt. And keep in mind that George Allen in one of the frontrunners for the '08 GOP presidential nomination!
As the GOP leadership and leading stars continue to cater to extremists, solid and decent people like Schaeffer will continue to leave the party in droves. What they will leave behind will be a party even further bereft of the voices of moderation, so the cycle continues.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
advice to John Cole http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7551
John Cole really bares his soul in a lamentation about the state of the Republican Party. His party loyalist bonafides are sterling, yet he feels profoundly betrayed. And in his summary of his feelings about where his party has gone, he says something very familiar to me, indeed:
Now, the analogy to extremist Islam simply leaps off the page here. And where I would take issue with John, in defense of his party, is the same way I defend Islam: by noting that there is actually very little evidence (and in fact plenty of counter-evidence) that by and large the rank and file of his party is as extremist as the ones driving it off the cliff.
How do extremists gain control? Is it because of a failing of the mainstream? Is it because of a flaw in the underlying ideology? is it because the majority tacitly approves? I answer no. It is simply because extremists see that thing which we in the mainstream value, as a means to an end: power. Control. And therefore they are the ones who are most motivated to opportunistically game the system in their favor. We in the mainstream don't want to game the system, we just want the system to work. So we are at a fundamental disadvantage.
What's the solution? Simply, localization. We must assert control at the local level of our institutions. Whether it be the party precinct or the local masjid, we must focus inwards and ensure that they meet the expectations and standards of our values. And we, who are articulate enough to write and argue and persuade, must be active in that local community as well, as guardians of those values. This applies to virtual commmunities as much as it does to physical ones.
One reason I am optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party as both a wide tent and as being more immune to the corruption that both the GOP and the Dmeocratic party underwent during their respective periods of single-party rule is because of the 50-state strategy that Howard Dean is laying the ground work for. In essence, Dean has destroyed and upended the centralized structure of the Democratic National Committee. He has sent millions of dollars to local state organizers instead of to the central and nationalized party organs like the DCCC and the DSCC. He has paid for field activists and prganizers and district leaders to begin grassroots organizing in the reddest of red states, such as Utah. In ten years' time, should the Democrats find themselves in single-party rule again, they won't find these state organizations subservient to the diktats of Washington DC. This is a powerful shift in paradigm that I sincerely pray - for the good of our country and the sake of our nation - is mirrored by the GOP as well.
John, your party is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is your community. You can put whatever label you want on it, but find it, or build it, and lead it. That's how we safeguard our democracy - next week, next year, and in the next decade to come.
And it makes me mad. I still think of myself as a Republican- but I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder ‘Why can’t they see what I see?” I don’t think I am crazy, I don’t think my beliefs have changed radically, and I don’t think I have been (as suggested by others) brainwashed by my commentariat.
Now, the analogy to extremist Islam simply leaps off the page here. And where I would take issue with John, in defense of his party, is the same way I defend Islam: by noting that there is actually very little evidence (and in fact plenty of counter-evidence) that by and large the rank and file of his party is as extremist as the ones driving it off the cliff.
How do extremists gain control? Is it because of a failing of the mainstream? Is it because of a flaw in the underlying ideology? is it because the majority tacitly approves? I answer no. It is simply because extremists see that thing which we in the mainstream value, as a means to an end: power. Control. And therefore they are the ones who are most motivated to opportunistically game the system in their favor. We in the mainstream don't want to game the system, we just want the system to work. So we are at a fundamental disadvantage.
What's the solution? Simply, localization. We must assert control at the local level of our institutions. Whether it be the party precinct or the local masjid, we must focus inwards and ensure that they meet the expectations and standards of our values. And we, who are articulate enough to write and argue and persuade, must be active in that local community as well, as guardians of those values. This applies to virtual commmunities as much as it does to physical ones.
One reason I am optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party as both a wide tent and as being more immune to the corruption that both the GOP and the Dmeocratic party underwent during their respective periods of single-party rule is because of the 50-state strategy that Howard Dean is laying the ground work for. In essence, Dean has destroyed and upended the centralized structure of the Democratic National Committee. He has sent millions of dollars to local state organizers instead of to the central and nationalized party organs like the DCCC and the DSCC. He has paid for field activists and prganizers and district leaders to begin grassroots organizing in the reddest of red states, such as Utah. In ten years' time, should the Democrats find themselves in single-party rule again, they won't find these state organizations subservient to the diktats of Washington DC. This is a powerful shift in paradigm that I sincerely pray - for the good of our country and the sake of our nation - is mirrored by the GOP as well.
John, your party is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is your community. You can put whatever label you want on it, but find it, or build it, and lead it. That's how we safeguard our democracy - next week, next year, and in the next decade to come.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
